Is "Latin America" part of the "west"?
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 29, 2024, 10:42:04 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  International General Discussion (Moderators: afleitch, Hash)
  Is "Latin America" part of the "west"?
« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4
Author Topic: Is "Latin America" part of the "west"?  (Read 5944 times)
ag
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,828


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #50 on: December 30, 2010, 01:58:04 AM »

Argentina and Uruguay are white settler societies. If they aren't western, then neither are the United States and Australia. The former at least is far less white, and in all the aforementioned countries, the indigenous are a powerless, marginalized, tiny minority. That's much less the case in most of Latin America. Most of Latin America outside of the Southern Cone has Hispanic Cities and a largely indigenous countryside. To return to the Mexico example some have brought up, Mexico City and the resort cities on the coast are clearly culturally Western, but the rest of the country, not so much.

The fundamental lack of liberalism in Argentinian polity is, indeed, making Russia the closest comparison.

Spain and Portugal were at least as lacking in liberalism until the 1970s, and almost everyone agrees that they are part of the West.

So, I guess, for you "westernness" is sinonymous w/ "whitness". But then, there is a very simple question for you: is Russia "Western"? If Argentina is, surely so is Russia. Or is it not just "whiteness", but also Catholicism/Protestantism? But, then, is Greece Western?

I might be splitting hairs, but there is a difference in that Argentina is Catholic and Russia Orthodox.

Greece is vehemently Orthodox. So are 3 more EU members (Cyprus, Bulgaria and Romania). And all four have many fewer blonds than the Russians (in fact, Russians would consider them borderline "black"). In any case, should I take your point that to be "Western" one must be both white and Catholic/Protestant (excluding those four)? But, then, Ukrainians are not only blond, but, at least in the West, a lot of them ARE Catholic (most of them in a fe provinces). Perhaps, you will also insist on the Latin rite (Catholic Ukrainians are, mostly, Uniate)?

I'm not arguing that Orthodoxy precludes Westernness, I'm simply saying that such an argument might be made. Certainly whiteness is necessary, though. It is the foundation of the West.

Hm. Still?

Ok, let's define "white". For instance, from the Russian standpoint, most Mediterranens (Greeks, Italians, etc.) are about as white as the Zulus Smiley)) Are Jews white? Are the Irish? What IS "white"?
Logged
ag
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,828


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #51 on: December 30, 2010, 02:02:05 AM »

The bulk of Eastern Europe isn't any richer than Lat Am and its institutions are equally fragile. Lithuania's PPP GDP per capita is barely higher than Argentina's, Latvia's is roughly equal to that of Mexico and Uruguay, Bulgaria is like Venezuela, Romania is like Brazil. All 4 are EU members, so, arguably, at least somewhat "Western". Botswana may be a bit of a quirk of statistics: the PPP adjustment there is huge: its nominal GDP is closer to Colombia and Suriname, than it is to Mexico or Argentina (though Botswana's number still beats Bulgaria). In nominal terms, the richest Lat. Am. countries (Uruguay and Chile) have higher GDP per capita than Poland.  In fact, until fairly recently many Lat Am countries were wealthier than Spain or Portugal - it's only in the last 20 years that the migration flows have reversed.

Likewise, arguably, the history of democratic institutions in much of Latin America is roughly as long and robust as that in Eastern/Central Europe, and  the Southern Europe doesn't have that much of an advantage there either.  

Finally, as for monetary ties to Europe - why's that a criterion? Some Latin American countries have extremely strong ties (including financial) to the US - unless you consider US not to be part of the West either, why exactly should one bother about Europe per se here? For that matter, if the "monetary ties" to Europe were to be determinative, much of Africa would have done extremely well (all those quasi-French currencies Smiley)) ).

I always use PPP conversions when doing international wealth comparisons. The nominal GDP per capita (at least as tabulated on wiki) is so sensitive to fluctuations that it's hardly a usable metric, except in proximal places where the disparity is striking, like the US-Mexico, or France-Algeria.

And about the EU: Christopher Hitchens actually wrote someplace that (at the time) backward countries like Spain and Portugal were admitted to the Common Market in order to Europeanize them politically, irrespective of any monetary benefit to the member states, not that either were anything other than western even during their dictatorships. In that sense, the same impetus is true for EU expansion into eastern nations like Poland and the Czech Republic, not that they were anything less than western oriented in their histories, either.

I think instability of domestic institutions goes farther than simply the revolving-door style ministries of Italy. I mean situations where the civil institutions, civil infrastructure, or important industries like banks come to a complete stop, or even vanish, as was once common in Latin America and other stereotypical "Third World" countries (I regard Nigeria as a prototype of this).

And monetary ties to Europe: I thought, as an economist you would have drawn a distinction between being a member of a financial decision-making body (or, really, club) consisting of near-equals, like the old gold standard, or the G8**, and being a colonialist dependency subject to
unpayable IMF loans and western politicians like subsaharan Africa.

**unlike the modern G20

1. Fine. But even under PPP several Lat Am economies have GDP numbers similar or above to those of several EU members.

2. Whatever Nigeria has to do w/ it, but the leading Lat Am economies have a lot more in common institutionally w/ Europe than they have w/ Nigeria.

3. I still have now clue about monetary ties? Is US Western or not? Which loans are unpayable? No clue, honest to god Smiley))
Logged
Хahar 🤔
Xahar
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 41,731
Bangladesh


Political Matrix
E: -6.77, S: 0.61

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #52 on: December 30, 2010, 03:46:30 AM »
« Edited: December 30, 2010, 05:52:47 PM by Χahar »

Argentina and Uruguay are white settler societies. If they aren't western, then neither are the United States and Australia. The former at least is far less white, and in all the aforementioned countries, the indigenous are a powerless, marginalized, tiny minority. That's much less the case in most of Latin America. Most of Latin America outside of the Southern Cone has Hispanic Cities and a largely indigenous countryside. To return to the Mexico example some have brought up, Mexico City and the resort cities on the coast are clearly culturally Western, but the rest of the country, not so much.

The fundamental lack of liberalism in Argentinian polity is, indeed, making Russia the closest comparison.

Spain and Portugal were at least as lacking in liberalism until the 1970s, and almost everyone agrees that they are part of the West.

So, I guess, for you "westernness" is sinonymous w/ "whitness". But then, there is a very simple question for you: is Russia "Western"? If Argentina is, surely so is Russia. Or is it not just "whiteness", but also Catholicism/Protestantism? But, then, is Greece Western?

I might be splitting hairs, but there is a difference in that Argentina is Catholic and Russia Orthodox.

Greece is vehemently Orthodox. So are 3 more EU members (Cyprus, Bulgaria and Romania). And all four have many fewer blonds than the Russians (in fact, Russians would consider them borderline "black"). In any case, should I take your point that to be "Western" one must be both white and Catholic/Protestant (excluding those four)? But, then, Ukrainians are not only blond, but, at least in the West, a lot of them ARE Catholic (most of them in a fe provinces). Perhaps, you will also insist on the Latin rite (Catholic Ukrainians are, mostly, Uniate)?

I'm not arguing that Orthodoxy precludes Westernness, I'm simply saying that such an argument might be made. Certainly whiteness is necessary, though. It is the foundation of the West.

Hm. Still?

Ok, let's define "white". For instance, from the Russian standpoint, most Mediterranens (Greeks, Italians, etc.) are about as white as the Zulus Smiley)) Are Jews white? Are the Irish? What IS "white"?

Ancestry is a reasonable test of whiteness, I would think; those of predominantly European ancestry are white. Obviously Jews are a bit problematic in this paradigm (to the best of my knowledge, Jews of European ancestry would thereby be counted as white and Jews of non-European ancestry not), but they are not predominant in any of the areas in question.
Logged
Gustaf
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,770


Political Matrix
E: 0.39, S: -0.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #53 on: December 30, 2010, 05:17:50 AM »

Yeah this debate (as I thought it would) has come down as to whether "the west" is a cultural entity defined by some supposed Graeco-Roman-Christian heritage or whether it is another word for "the club of rich countries" which somehow excludes East Asia.

I disagree. Tongue

Oh really. How so? Tongue

Well, you can read my previous post. I basically view the West as a set of institutions which historically have distinct cultural and geographical connotations (though most of these are not particularly white or western - it's mostly Jews and Greeks, after all) but that do not have those today.

I've never been a big fan of the idea that things like democracy or economic growth is something exclusive to white people. I believe most groups of people want the same basic things and will evolve in a roughly similar manner, given the right set of institutions. As countries achieve these, they become western because that is, imo, what the West is about.

Of course, differences remain between Sweden and Japan, just like there are major differences between Sweden and Ireland or Sweden and Italy or Sweden and the US. But I would argue that these differences are smaller than those between Sweden and Nigeria.
Logged
Silent Hunter
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,308
United Kingdom


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #54 on: December 30, 2010, 06:40:30 AM »

Well, you can read my previous post. I basically view the West as a set of institutions which historically have distinct cultural and geographical connotations (though most of these are not particularly white or western - it's mostly Jews and Greeks, after all) but that do not have those today.

To a broad extent, I agree.
Logged
Silent Hunter
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,308
United Kingdom


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #55 on: December 30, 2010, 07:05:19 AM »

Ancestry is a reasonable test of whiteness, I would think; those of predominantly European ancestry are white. Obviously Jews are a bit problematic in this paradigm (to the best of my knowledge, Jews of European ancestry would thereby be counted at white and Jews of non-European ancestry not), but they are not predominant in any of the areas in question.

This gets complex, though. You've got various sub-groups of "white". An Italian person looks considerably different from a British one; you can reasonably spot a Russian from a French person.
Logged
Silent Hunter
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,308
United Kingdom


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #56 on: December 30, 2010, 07:25:15 AM »

There are some common criteria among modern "Western" countries:
* Membership of NATO and/or European trading blocs.
* Broadly pro-US foreign policy.
* Use of a Latin-based language that was not introduced by sea-faring colonialists.
* Being broadly "Christian" and "white"
* A high level of PPP and a near 100% literacy rate.
* A decent sewage system.
* Greco-Roman based legal systems.
* Being located in Europe or North America.
* Reasonably low crime rates.
* A temperate climate.
* Not being a former communist country.
* Being an electoral democracy.

However, having one or more of these does not make a state "Western". Not having one does not exclude someone.

My view on the disputable cases:
* Japan: No. It's culturally different, it doesn't use a Latin language and it's not Christian.,
* Mexico: No, it's Latin-based language was introduced by colonialists and it's still pretty poor. Plus the crime rate.
* Brazil: No, for the same reasons as Mexico. Along with the climate.
* Russia: No. Not a Latin-based language, most of it's in Asia and it certainly does not see itself as Western.
* Poland: Yes; NATO and EU member. First to abandon communism.
* Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. Yes, for the same reasons as Poland. They weren't part of the USSR when it was originally created as well.
* Slovenia: Yes, NATO and EU member.
* Romania: No, too poor.
* Bulgaria: No, see Romania. It also uses Cyrillic.
* Greece: Yes, NATO and EU member.
* Argentina: Maybe.

Ultimately, it's a matter of "self-definition", of course.
Logged
Storebought
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,326
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #57 on: December 30, 2010, 10:18:11 AM »

The bulk of Eastern Europe isn't any richer than Lat Am and its institutions are equally fragile. Lithuania's PPP GDP per capita is barely higher than Argentina's, Latvia's is roughly equal to that of Mexico and Uruguay, Bulgaria is like Venezuela, Romania is like Brazil. All 4 are EU members, so, arguably, at least somewhat "Western". Botswana may be a bit of a quirk of statistics: the PPP adjustment there is huge: its nominal GDP is closer to Colombia and Suriname, than it is to Mexico or Argentina (though Botswana's number still beats Bulgaria). In nominal terms, the richest Lat. Am. countries (Uruguay and Chile) have higher GDP per capita than Poland.  In fact, until fairly recently many Lat Am countries were wealthier than Spain or Portugal - it's only in the last 20 years that the migration flows have reversed.

Likewise, arguably, the history of democratic institutions in much of Latin America is roughly as long and robust as that in Eastern/Central Europe, and  the Southern Europe doesn't have that much of an advantage there either.  

Finally, as for monetary ties to Europe - why's that a criterion? Some Latin American countries have extremely strong ties (including financial) to the US - unless you consider US not to be part of the West either, why exactly should one bother about Europe per se here? For that matter, if the "monetary ties" to Europe were to be determinative, much of Africa would have done extremely well (all those quasi-French currencies Smiley)) ).

I always use PPP conversions when doing international wealth comparisons. The nominal GDP per capita (at least as tabulated on wiki) is so sensitive to fluctuations that it's hardly a usable metric, except in proximal places where the disparity is striking, like the US-Mexico, or France-Algeria.

And about the EU: Christopher Hitchens actually wrote someplace that (at the time) backward countries like Spain and Portugal were admitted to the Common Market in order to Europeanize them politically, irrespective of any monetary benefit to the member states, not that either were anything other than western even during their dictatorships. In that sense, the same impetus is true for EU expansion into eastern nations like Poland and the Czech Republic, not that they were anything less than western oriented in their histories, either.

I think instability of domestic institutions goes farther than simply the revolving-door style ministries of Italy. I mean situations where the civil institutions, civil infrastructure, or important industries like banks come to a complete stop, or even vanish, as was once common in Latin America and other stereotypical "Third World" countries (I regard Nigeria as a prototype of this).

And monetary ties to Europe: I thought, as an economist you would have drawn a distinction between being a member of a financial decision-making body (or, really, club) consisting of near-equals, like the old gold standard, or the G8**, and being a colonialist dependency subject to
unpayable IMF loans and western politicians like subsaharan Africa.

**unlike the modern G20

1. Fine. But even under PPP several Lat Am economies have GDP numbers similar or above to those of several EU members.

2. Whatever Nigeria has to do w/ it, but the leading Lat Am economies have a lot more in common institutionally w/ Europe than they have w/ Nigeria.

3. I still have now clue about monetary ties? Is US Western or not? Which loans are unpayable? No clue, honest to god Smiley))


2. I cite Nigeria as the prototype "Third World" nation: Decayed to nonexistent infrastructure, a peasantry with widespread low-human development, importance of the police/military as a political force, single-industry economy, etc.. And in this light, the national issues of Latin American countries more strongly resembles the national issues of Nigeria than it does any western country.

3. Debts borrowed against and serviced in a foreign currency are absolutely unpayable. Look at the way Ecuador and Argentina -- and Iceland -- defaulted on their dollar/euro debts earlier this decade.  But these countries have no choice other than borrowing from the IMF or from European banks: These national governments do not have the option of borrowing from themselves like Japan, printing up money like the US (they'd end up like Zimbabwe in months), or even borrowing from each other, since they need the capital just as much as their neighbors.

Even private banks in Mexico and Argentina are ultimately capitalized from Spain (which is ultimately backed by Germany), in the way that banks in Nigeria are capitalized from South Africa (which gets its debts from the UK).

The more I think about it, the more I'm convinced that Latin America and Eastern Europe are not Western -- westernizing, certainly, but not Western, not yet.
Logged
ag
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,828


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #58 on: December 30, 2010, 05:53:14 PM »


2. I cite Nigeria as the prototype "Third World" nation: Decayed to nonexistent infrastructure, a peasantry with widespread low-human development, importance of the police/military as a political force, single-industry economy, etc.. And in this light, the national issues of Latin American countries more strongly resembles the national issues of Nigeria than it does any western country.

3. Debts borrowed against and serviced in a foreign currency are absolutely unpayable. Look at the way Ecuador and Argentina -- and Iceland -- defaulted on their dollar/euro debts earlier this decade.  But these countries have no choice other than borrowing from the IMF or from European banks: These national governments do not have the option of borrowing from themselves like Japan, printing up money like the US (they'd end up like Zimbabwe in months), or even borrowing from each other, since they need the capital just as much as their neighbors.

Even private banks in Mexico and Argentina are ultimately capitalized from Spain (which is ultimately backed by Germany), in the way that banks in Nigeria are capitalized from South Africa (which gets its debts from the UK).

Nigeria has about as much in common w/ Argentina as it has w/ the US. Taking Nigeria as an "archetype" here could, perhaps, serve to argue that most of Lat Am is not at all like it, but not otherwise Smiley))

Iceland is "Third World"? What about Norway then?

BTW, Mexico has nearly USD$100 bln in reserves and has just placed a 100-year bond at a quite low interest. Clearly, the markets don't think those debts unpayable Smiley))

I don't quite follow your argument about, say, Mexican banks. Yes, some them belong to the Spaniards (though Banamex belongs to the Citibank, there is a sizable Canadian presence by Scotiabank Inverlat, HSBC has gotten the old Bital; Banorte - one of the largeish banks, especially after its forthcoming merger w/ Ixe - is Mexican-owned; the only major Spanish-owned banks I can immediately think of are Bancomer, which belongs to BBVA and Santander, which belongs to Santander Central Hispano).  But Argentina's example shows, if anything, that if sh**t happens, local subsidiaries will be cut loose by their mother banks. I don't really expect BBVA to rescue Bancomer if there is a big crisis. BTW, no need to speak of "private banks" - the sector has been overwhelmingly private for quite some years now.


Logged
ag
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,828


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #59 on: December 30, 2010, 05:55:29 PM »

Argentina and Uruguay are white settler societies. If they aren't western, then neither are the United States and Australia. The former at least is far less white, and in all the aforementioned countries, the indigenous are a powerless, marginalized, tiny minority. That's much less the case in most of Latin America. Most of Latin America outside of the Southern Cone has Hispanic Cities and a largely indigenous countryside. To return to the Mexico example some have brought up, Mexico City and the resort cities on the coast are clearly culturally Western, but the rest of the country, not so much.

The fundamental lack of liberalism in Argentinian polity is, indeed, making Russia the closest comparison.

Spain and Portugal were at least as lacking in liberalism until the 1970s, and almost everyone agrees that they are part of the West.

So, I guess, for you "westernness" is sinonymous w/ "whitness". But then, there is a very simple question for you: is Russia "Western"? If Argentina is, surely so is Russia. Or is it not just "whiteness", but also Catholicism/Protestantism? But, then, is Greece Western?

I might be splitting hairs, but there is a difference in that Argentina is Catholic and Russia Orthodox.

Greece is vehemently Orthodox. So are 3 more EU members (Cyprus, Bulgaria and Romania). And all four have many fewer blonds than the Russians (in fact, Russians would consider them borderline "black"). In any case, should I take your point that to be "Western" one must be both white and Catholic/Protestant (excluding those four)? But, then, Ukrainians are not only blond, but, at least in the West, a lot of them ARE Catholic (most of them in a fe provinces). Perhaps, you will also insist on the Latin rite (Catholic Ukrainians are, mostly, Uniate)?

I'm not arguing that Orthodoxy precludes Westernness, I'm simply saying that such an argument might be made. Certainly whiteness is necessary, though. It is the foundation of the West.

Hm. Still?

Ok, let's define "white". For instance, from the Russian standpoint, most Mediterranens (Greeks, Italians, etc.) are about as white as the Zulus Smiley)) Are Jews white? Are the Irish? What IS "white"?

Ancestry is a reasonable test of whiteness, I would think; those of predominantly European ancestry are white. Obviously Jews are a bit problematic in this paradigm (to the best of my knowledge, Jews of European ancestry would thereby be counted as white and Jews of non-European ancestry not), but they are not predominant in any of the areas in question.

Where do we draw the ancestry line? There is a long-standing ruling by an Australian court saying that Scottish Gaelic is not a European language. in light of this, are the Scots "white"? Are the Neapolitans white?
Logged
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,157
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #60 on: December 30, 2010, 10:48:55 PM »

Depends on how you define "west".  Pretty much any definition not based on economic levels would include Latin America.  One indicator that a country is Western is that the primary native language(s) of the country has been written by its users using the Latin alphabet for a couple of centuries,  (Thus for example, Romania and Turkey aren't really Western, tho they have been Westernizing for many decades now.)

Yes, and I include Quebec as part of Latin America.

Not unless you're being extremely pedantic, and if you want to be that, call it Ibero-America instead of Latin America.

Ibero entails from Iberia. So, I am confused as French comes from France, not Iberia.

Lumping Quebec in with the area that is usually meant by Latin America makes no sense.  Hence rather than stretching the definition of Latin to include Franco-America, use the term Ibero-America instead to refer to that area.
Logged
Platypus
hughento
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 21,478
Australia


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #61 on: December 30, 2010, 11:14:36 PM »

There are some common criteria among modern "Western" countries:
* Membership of NATO and/or European trading blocs.
Australia and NZ?

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
Should be amended to "more often supports US foreign policy to that of it's rivals" or something similar.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
Obviously pretty problematic - goodbye North America, Australasia and Northern Europe.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'd change the last one to "good health and sanitation infrastructure"; rural areas and whatnot.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
Australia/NZL, but also others, make this not true.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
California has the highest rate of incarceration in the world, so...no.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
Iceland? Arizona?

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
East Germany? Czech Republic? Italy?

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

I get that, but the criteria are still a bit off.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

The last line is the most important. Every western country sees itself as western; and almost every country that sees itself as western is.
Logged
Хahar 🤔
Xahar
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 41,731
Bangladesh


Political Matrix
E: -6.77, S: 0.61

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #62 on: December 30, 2010, 11:23:03 PM »

A place is Western if the West accepts it as such.
Logged
Platypus
hughento
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 21,478
Australia


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #63 on: December 30, 2010, 11:40:18 PM »

A place is Western if the West accepts it as such.

Pretty much. We can all basically agree that the west includes:

USA
Canada
Australia
New Zealand
Scandinavia
United Kingdom
Ireland
France
Benelux
Germany
Switzerland
Leichtenstein
Austria
Iberia
Monaco
Italy
San Marino

...anywhere I forgot?

Then there are a few nations that are almost always agreed upon (Greece, Israel, Malta, etc). But I think it would be a fair way of working it out; if 4/5ths of the 'universally agreed west' regard a nation as western, it is. The problem is that the question isn't important enough for the west to put its neck out and define itself.
Logged
tnowacki
Rookie
**
Posts: 24
Germany


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #64 on: December 31, 2010, 06:35:56 AM »

There are some common criteria among modern "Western" countries:
* Membership of NATO and/or European trading blocs.
* Broadly pro-US foreign policy.
* Greco-Roman based legal systems.
* Being located in Europe or North America.
* A temperate climate.
* Not being a former communist country.

However, having one or more of these does not make a state "Western". Not having one does not exclude someone.


Ultimately, it's a matter of "self-definition", of course.
I'd disagree, except for the last sentence. Wink. In my view, particularly the membership of NATO or EU is not a common criterium for membership of the "West". These organisations are created on the values that "the West" shares, not the other way around. Furthermore, states being commonly considered as "Western", like Austria or Norway are not part of the NATO.
Also, having a communist era in history is no criteria for "being Western" at all, as most post-communist societies like Poland, Czech Republik, Slovenia, Baltic States etc. are now definetly "Western". It is the overall history and culture, what counts. For example, Poland was always considered as the buffer against the East, thus always counted as an essential part of Europe. Russia, in contrast, was never counted to Europe until the "Westernization" of Car Peter the Great was introduced; ever since, Russia is much nearer to the West, but because of its different religion (Orthodox), history and huge ethnicities in Asia I would not count it to the "Western" civilization.
I also disagree with the criteria of foreign policy. A "Western" country is considered to have a developed and functional democracy. Thus, diplomatic priorities and relations can change with a single government change. It is natural, that states from a common civilization stand closer to each other than to states of other civilizations, but that does not exclude intracivilizational conflicts. Furthermore, most European states are now opposed to the USA; does that make them less "Western"? Or Japan and Australia more "Western"?
It is, in my opinion, also not the geography, which is important. Hence, I personally include Australia or NZ to the "Western" civilization. I think, civilizations and their differences can be described only by common and different values, history and religion. And a civilization can only exist, when there are other civilizations to which one can compare his or her own. Smiley

Oh, and by the way, most of Central European countries do not have a Roman law system, but still the one that was introduced by Napoleon. Wink
Logged
Zarn
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,820


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #65 on: December 31, 2010, 09:08:22 AM »

A place is Western if the West accepts it as such.

Pretty much. We can all basically agree that the west includes:

USA
Canada
Australia
New Zealand
Scandinavia
United Kingdom
Ireland
France
Benelux
Germany
Switzerland
Leichtenstein
Austria
Iberia
Monaco
Italy
San Marino

...anywhere I forgot?

Then there are a few nations that are almost always agreed upon (Greece, Israel, Malta, etc). But I think it would be a fair way of working it out; if 4/5ths of the 'universally agreed west' regard a nation as western, it is. The problem is that the question isn't important enough for the west to put its neck out and define itself.

Plus
Vatican
Turkey

Minus
Australia
New Zealand
Israel


I would personally include Latin America, aside from certain countries such as Venezuela, Cuba (unfortunately), and Bolivia.
Logged
tnowacki
Rookie
**
Posts: 24
Germany


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #66 on: December 31, 2010, 10:44:12 AM »

Turkey?! Well... not really, in my opinion
Add
Poland
Czech
Slowakia
Slovenia
Baltic States
Hungary
please.
Logged
MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!
Kalwejt
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 57,380


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #67 on: December 31, 2010, 10:59:48 AM »

Logged
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,157
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #68 on: December 31, 2010, 03:32:09 PM »

A place is Western if the West accepts it as such.

Pretty much. We can all basically agree that the west includes:

USA
Canada
Australia
New Zealand
Scandinavia
United Kingdom
Ireland
France
Benelux
Germany
Switzerland
Leichtenstein
Austria
Iberia
Monaco
Italy
San Marino

...anywhere I forgot?

Then there are a few nations that are almost always agreed upon (Greece, Israel, Malta, etc). But I think it would be a fair way of working it out; if 4/5ths of the 'universally agreed west' regard a nation as western, it is. The problem is that the question isn't important enough for the west to put its neck out and define itself.

While the West's culture owes much to the ancient Greeks, Greece is not really a Western country.  I'd include the Czech Republic, Poland, Slovenia, and Malta as part of the West.  The Baltic States, Slovakia, Hungary, and Croatia are part of the Western periphery in Europe.  They aren't fully Western, but they are more Western than Eastern.
Logged
The Mikado
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 21,678


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #69 on: December 31, 2010, 09:18:21 PM »

This is such an odd thread.

I've never considered Latin America anything else.  They're countries with a strong European heritage and links that have been part of the "Western" world order since the Spanish-Portuguese period.
Logged
viewit
Newbie
*
Posts: 3
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #70 on: January 01, 2011, 09:50:29 PM »

Latin America is very much part of the West.  Especially considering that "The West" is a cultural/civilizational term--it has nothing to do with wealth, economics, or political orientation. 

True, in economics Latin America is generally "developing" (or in older more loaded terminology third world), and it may not be "aligned", or even socialist (Cuba)-- but throughout history, other western nations have been autocratic and centralized (France of Louis XIV, Nazi Gemany, East Germany, etc...).  In fact autocracy, feudalism, and other non-liberal traditions are very much part of western tradition.

Perhaps, there is a bit of a problem with how we use this word in the English-speaking world.  We have The West (civilization), also "The West" which is another thing altogether having to do with NATO and being opposed to the USSR, generally in a camp with the US.  Perhaps, in German it is expressed better.  The West as a civilization is "Das Abendland" (land of the evening), and "the West" as a political grouping is "Der Westen"--two different words, no confusion.  So, for example, Poland could be part of "Das Abendland" but not part of "Der Westen".  By the same token, Mexico can be part of The West (Abendland) but also be a developing nation.

Any talk of people's skin color in these countries is totally beside the point.  Latin America--largely catholic, products of Spanish colonialism, rooted in judeo-cristian and greco-roman culture, much like the ex-British colonies (i.e. the USA, Australia, etc...).  In fact, it could be argued that Latin America is more "western" than the US since the US stems from Britain, which has historically been more of an outlier in European culture--at least as much as Russia.  Though, I would certainly consider the US or Britain as part of the West.

The fact that the Spanish in the past talked about going to Europe as if it were somewhere else was also something that happened in Socialist Poland, at various times in Scandinavia, even in Britain--where people look at the continent as another sort of place.  This is all due to various historical and geographical reasons--Scandinavia, Spain, and Britain are on the edge of Europe.  Poles felt a bit isolated behind the iron curtain.  But, it never really meant that they felt they were not part of Europe or Western Civilization, it was just a way to highlight their feeling of isolation at that time.
Logged
Platypus
hughento
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 21,478
Australia


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #71 on: January 02, 2011, 12:47:26 AM »

A place is Western if the West accepts it as such.

Pretty much. We can all basically agree that the west includes:

USA
Canada
Australia
New Zealand
Scandinavia
United Kingdom
Ireland
France
Benelux
Germany
Switzerland
Leichtenstein
Austria
Iberia
Monaco
Italy
San Marino

...anywhere I forgot?

Then there are a few nations that are almost always agreed upon (Greece, Israel, Malta, etc). But I think it would be a fair way of working it out; if 4/5ths of the 'universally agreed west' regard a nation as western, it is. The problem is that the question isn't important enough for the west to put its neck out and define itself.

While the West's culture owes much to the ancient Greeks, Greece is not really a Western country.  I'd include the Czech Republic, Poland, Slovenia, and Malta as part of the West.  The Baltic States, Slovakia, Hungary, and Croatia are part of the Western periphery in Europe.  They aren't fully Western, but they are more Western than Eastern.

I'd also include with that, i'm just trying to work out a list of the ones that absolutyely everyone can agree is the west.

Turkey should most certainly not be on that list if Australia and NZ aren't, btw.
Logged
tnowacki
Rookie
**
Posts: 24
Germany


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #72 on: January 02, 2011, 06:40:25 AM »

Latin America is very much part of the West.  Especially considering that "The West" is a cultural/civilizational term--it has nothing to do with wealth, economics, or political orientation. 

Perhaps, there is a bit of a problem with how we use this word in the English-speaking world.  We have The West (civilization), also "The West" which is another thing altogether having to do with NATO and being opposed to the USSR, generally in a camp with the US.  Perhaps, in German it is expressed better.  The West as a civilization is "Das Abendland" (land of the evening), and "the West" as a political grouping is "Der Westen"--two different words, no confusion.  So, for example, Poland could be part of "Das Abendland" but not part of "Der Westen".  By the same token, Mexico can be part of The West (Abendland) but also be a developing nation.
Actually, Poland is part of "der Westen", as it is integrated in both NATO and EU, has strongly European roots and is politically considered as Western.
Logged
cannonia
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 960
United States


Political Matrix
E: 7.42, S: -1.30

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #73 on: January 02, 2011, 06:49:01 AM »

Latin America is obviously part of the West, in that it is in the Western Hemisphere, was settled by Western powers, and has been in the American sphere of influence.

For those arguing about Greece and Russia, I would call those more East than West.  If I had to draw a line, it would probably be based on some combination of the Eastern/Western split of the Roman Empire, Napoleon's conquests, and the Iron Curtain.
Logged
Zarn
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,820


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #74 on: January 02, 2011, 08:20:08 AM »

A place is Western if the West accepts it as such.

Pretty much. We can all basically agree that the west includes:

USA
Canada
Australia
New Zealand
Scandinavia
United Kingdom
Ireland
France
Benelux
Germany
Switzerland
Leichtenstein
Austria
Iberia
Monaco
Italy
San Marino

...anywhere I forgot?

Then there are a few nations that are almost always agreed upon (Greece, Israel, Malta, etc). But I think it would be a fair way of working it out; if 4/5ths of the 'universally agreed west' regard a nation as western, it is. The problem is that the question isn't important enough for the west to put its neck out and define itself.

While the West's culture owes much to the ancient Greeks, Greece is not really a Western country.  I'd include the Czech Republic, Poland, Slovenia, and Malta as part of the West.  The Baltic States, Slovakia, Hungary, and Croatia are part of the Western periphery in Europe.  They aren't fully Western, but they are more Western than Eastern.

I'd also include with that, i'm just trying to work out a list of the ones that absolutyely everyone can agree is the west.

Turkey should most certainly not be on that list if Australia and NZ aren't, btw.

Which one is partially in Europe, in NATO, has been a major power in Europe, and is actually west of India?
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.079 seconds with 12 queries.